frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





To What Extent was the USA's 2003 Invasion of Iraq Justified?

Debate Information

The USA was Not Justified.

While it is admirable that the USA rid Iraq of Hussein's rule, it is definitely questionable as to whether it was their Right and / or their Responsibility to do so. The reason cited by the United States for invading Iraq was the possibility of WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction), which - as is common knowledge - were never found.
Furthermore, the hypocrisy ( and irony ) of the United States taking action against these - alleged - WMD's cannot be forgotten, simply due to the fact that the USA itself is the world's foremost nuclear superpower. The operation, later dubbed 'Operation Iraqi Freedom', was the USA's attempt at helping the Iraqi people overcome a tyrannical and corrupt government. However, this was never the USA's problem to absolve or amend.
History has shown - time, and time again - that oppressed peoples will not allow themselves to remain oppressed, e.g. the Russian / Bolshevik Revolution, the anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa, the French Revolution, etc. History also demonstrates that such revolutions do not take place solely via the help of other nations, especially not by other nations openly declaring war on them. As can be seen in other places where the United States has intervened, hardly any good has ever come from the USA's "help", such as in Vietnam (where help was not wanted), Korea (which is now two separate nations, one of which is stricken with abject poverty and a Dictatorial leader), Germany during the Cold War (which created so much poverty that it became cheaper for Germans to burn money than to buy firewood), or even in Cuba, where Guantanamo Bay is still torturing and murdering innocent people to this day.According to the Iraq Body Count (an organization dedicated to the counting of all Iraqi deaths as a result of the war in Iraq), over 500 000 Iraqi soldiers and civilians have lost their lives to date, in comparison to the 4 424 American soldiers who died while invading another country while hostile intent (and, unlike in Vietnam, there was no conscription for this war). Thus, it was not the United States' place to intervene, without first receiving a request for help - which it did not.
Lastly, the notion of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is - and was - a complete and utter fallacy. Firstly, on a superficial level, is this undeniable truth: One CANNOT invade - and spy on - a country, murder thousands of people, steal oil, equipment, and resources worth MILLIONS, and claim that it is 'all in the name of peace and Democracy'. Second, on a deeper level: the United States' government claimed that Iraqi citizens lived under an oppressive regime with Saddam Hussein in power. While this was certainly true, there is not a shred of evidence that Iraq was better off, once that regime had been removed from power. In fact, the intervention of the United States in Iraqi politics caused even more in-fighting, rebellions, and conflict than there was originally - this can still be seen in the state of Iraqi politics to this very day! Third, on the question of legality: according to Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the UN at the time, the invasion was indeed illegal. Thus, the notion of the United States invading a country to "bring peace and Democracy" is ridiculous, as the United States blatantly and deliberately disobeyed the very rules of the Security Council in which it has a permanent membership.

In summation, we can see that:
1. The 'Threat' of WMD's in Iraq was nonexistent, according to qualified UN inspectors both before, and after, the invasion.
2. The United States' being alarmed at the possibility of such weapons is completely hypocritical considering its status as the world's foremost nuclear superpower.
3. Despite constant attempts to convince the world of such a thing, Democracy was NOT the reason Iraq was invaded, and the act of invading Iraq was also an act of blatant disregard for the Democracy which the USA claims to enshrine and uphold.

Thus, in conclusion, the United States was NOT AT ALL justified in their 2003 invasion of Iraq.
aarongbrexitLogic
  1. Live Poll

    Do you believe this invasion was justified?

    8 votes
    1. No.
      62.50%
    2. Undecided.
      12.50%
    3. Yes.
      25.00%



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • brexitbrexit 22 Pts   -  
    This was not justified to any level. Obama was not yet in charge at this points and due to that can't be blamed for creating a major problem in the middle east or for creating ISIS and other terrorist groups. THe US needed to get involved simply for money and oil. There wasn't much of a choice due to the attacks on 9/11 and the want for oil. There was some leverale possibly involved as well.
  • brandzleebrandzlee 15 Pts   -  
    brexit said:
    This was not justified to any level. Obama was not yet in charge at this points and due to that can't be blamed for creating a major problem in the middle east or for creating ISIS and other terrorist groups. THe US needed to get involved simply for money and oil. There wasn't much of a choice due to the attacks on 9/11 and the want for oil. There was some leverale possibly involved as well.
    While 9/11 was indeed a terrible event, I would like to point out that:
    a) At the time, Al'Qaeda was based almost entirely in Afghanistan, not Iraq, and as such, 9/11-although a distant factor- is not directly relevant to this debate :)
    b) The US did not, at any point "need" to invade Iraq. Especially not for money or oil.

    And, while Obama was certainly not in power at this point:
    a) This debate focuses on the actual invasion on Iraq, and its consequences. As such, Obama is not a relevant part of this debate :)
    b) Nowhere in my argument did I blame - or even mention - Obama.
  • LogicLogic 279 Pts   -  
    No, It is not justified. But hey! Good ol'Merica doesn't do anything wrong!

    ...... In the eyes of a brainwashed american.  
    brandzlee
  • islander507islander507 194 Pts   -  
    I don't mind to blame Obama, but in this case it wasn't necessarily his fault.
    invading Iraq was a poor decision. We essentially ended up screwing up that country even more. It's like surgeon cutting out all the bad stuff and letting patient rot without recovery.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 6015 Pts   -  
    brandzlee said:

    In summation, we can see that:
    1. The 'Threat' of WMD's in Iraq was nonexistent, according to qualified UN inspectors both before, and after, the invasion.
    2. The United States' being alarmed at the possibility of such weapons is completely hypocritical considering its status as the world's foremost nuclear superpower.
    3. Despite constant attempts to convince the world of such a thing, Democracy was NOT the reason Iraq was invaded, and the act of invading Iraq was also an act of blatant disregard for the Democracy which the USA claims to enshrine and uphold.

    Thus, in conclusion, the United States was NOT AT ALL justified in their 2003 invasion of Iraq.
    1. UN inspectors have a very limited access to the confidential information totalitarian regimes possess, hence their conclusions should not be taken for granted. Besides, as we learned later, Iraq indeed had facilities working on the WMD technology, they just were not quite at the stage where those weapons could be used - and, according to the information of the US intelligence agencies, were transported to certain Iraq-friendly regimes.
    2. It is not hypocritical, when the US is a democratic state with a very restrictive chain of command and with no expansionist ambitions, while Iraq was a totalitarian dictatorship officially aimed to conquer the Middle East and recreate the Caliphate.
    3. It was one of the reasons, albeit probably not the most important one. The most important reason was that Iraqi regime was performing extreme human right violations, took draconian steps to limit the regional trade and gave refuge to multiple terrorist groups friendly to the regime.
    It is also worth noting that a possible dissonance between the stated goals and the actual goals does not affect whether a certain action is justified; from the point of view of pragmatism, it is the outcome and its comparison to the outcome in the absence of the action that should justify the action or not.

    I do not necessarily disagree with your general conclusion: I think the war in Iraq was executed in a very poor way, and the aftermath was not handled properly - however, I find the logic you employed to come to this conclusion as somewhat biased and inconsistent.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch